Ron Paul's Racist Rants

(NNPA) If you’ve watched any of the Republican debates, you’ll remember Ron Paul, the 76-year-old libertarian congressman from Texas whose oversized suit coats look like they are about to fall off his frail shoulders. You’ll also remember that no debate questioner asked him about the overtly racist views that appeared in his newsletters for two decades.

But now that Paul has surged to front-runner status in Iowa, he is being grilled about comments that range from denigrating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to objecting to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the 1990s, he described Dr. King as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and “seduced underage girls and boys.” He even claimed – without a hint of proof – that Dr. King “made a pass at” fellow civil rights warrior Ralph Abernathy, who succeeded King as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).

When Ronald Reagan signed the Martin Luther King Holiday bill into law, Paul wrote, “What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” He added, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

The controversial remarks were published in various for-profit Ron Paul newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s. The newsletters included: Ron Paul’s Political Report, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul’s Survival Report and the Ron Paul’s Investment Letter.

On January 8, 2008, The New Republic ran an article on Paul titled, “Angry White Man.” It was accompanied by an illustration of Paul wearing a confederate necktie and rebel hat. The story, written by James Kirchick, noted that Ron Paul’s newsletters were published on a monthly basis from 1978 to at least 1999. Most are on file in the right-wing extremists literature collections at the Wisconsin Historical Society and the University of Kansas.

Here are some excerpts from the newsletters, which were said to earn Paul at least $1million a year:

· After the uprising in Watts, the Ron Paul Political Report said in June 1992, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.”

· “*… If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-age male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” one report said.

· According to a newsletter bearing Paul’s name, “…Opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions.”

· The late congresswoman Barbara Jordon of Texas was called the “archetypical half-educated victimologist.”

· I* a December 1989 edition of Ron Paul’s Investment Letter, it was predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities.” According to the publication, “…Mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” · I* In June 1991, following a racial incident in the Adams Morgan section of Washington, D.C., one headline screamed, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.”

· I* In October of 1992, a newsletter bearing Paul’s name stated, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”

· “* Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal if not entirely criminal,” one Ron Paul newsletter asserts.

· * Praising former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in 1990, Ron Paul said through his newsletter that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race-privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.”

Ron Paul’s venom was not limited to his newsletters. While many were celebrating the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in 2004, Ron Paul was still objecting to it, saying June 4, 2004 on the floor of Congress, “…the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”

Incredulously, Ron Paul wants us to believe that not only did he not write the un-bylined racist comments in the newsletters that carried his name, but that he was unaware they appeared in his publications.

“I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them at the time, and I disavow them,” he told Gloria Borger of CNN. “I never read that stuff. I was probably unaware of it 10 years after it was written, and it’s been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this. CNN does it every single time. When are you going to wear yourself out?”

When Borger continued to press Paul, he abruptly terminated the interview. “These are pretty incendiary,” she told Paul. Unclipping his microphone, he said, “Only because of people like you.”

No, only because of Ron Paul’s documented record of racism.

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge.

Add comment

By using our comment system, you agree to not post profane, vulgar, offensive, or slanderous comments. Spam and soliciting are strictly prohibited. Violation of these rules will result in your comments being deleted and your IP Address banned from accessing our website in the future. Your e-mail address will NOT be published, sold or used for marketing purposes.

Comments

George E Curry, if there is any HONOR in you, you will appologize in writing or defend your "Venomous racist" charge.

What is it GEORGE E CURRY? Are you a PUNK or a MAN?

I am thinking PUNK. as in a politically correct liberal Hack PUNK. The kind of LAZY ASS Journalist who gets all his own THINKING from some White LIBERAL with an agenda to smear the ONLY NON Racists in the GOP race!

What do you have to say for yourself Mr. Curry? Are you going to Man Up and apologize? You know, the kind of thing that YOU SHOULD WHEN YOU ARE 100% wrong.

The Fact that Doctor Paul has decided long ago to disavow WORDS that were NOT his and even condemn them because he did not want to take on the Liberal PC police, does not excuse you from what you have done. So Apologize like a man or PROVE your case.

"They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in theirlives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not asrepresentatives of a racial group, but as decent people.

Among South Carolina Black Republicans, 50% of them like Newt Gingrich, 13% like Rick Santorum, and last place 4% like Ron Paul. That is AMAZINGLY bad. The fault is the Black Intellectual Community allowing liberal pundits over at The New Republic mag (yes white super sensitive liberals who THINK they know black people) use the RP newsletters for political gain. Our fault is letting them loudly define what IS and what IS NOT racism. We should stand up and tell white liberals, what is and IS NOT "racist".

40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in 2004, Ron Paul was still objecting to it, saying June 4, 2004 on the floor of Congress, “…the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”

--- READ the WHOLE speech. As someone who lived through the 1960's & 70's, I can tell you that FORCED BUSING was not appreciated at all by EITHER the blacks or the Whites. People LIKE their schools to be close to them. Busing now has been effectively ended FOR THIS REASON. SO Paul is correct.

Next, Ron Paul and RAND PAUL like all libertarians base their geopolitical philosophy upon the sanctity of Individual Rights of Man. The problem they have is with just ONE of the many planks within the Civil Rights act. They are DELIGHTED that the act got rid of government JIM CROW LAWS which their philosophy calls evil.

Ron Paul’s venom was not limited to his newsletters. While many were celebrating the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in 2004, Ron Paul was still objecting to it, saying June 4, 2004 on the floor of Congress, “…the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”

"Venom? There was no RON PAUL "VENOM" towards people of color, minorities. The ONLY "venom" was reserved for thugs-criminals-gansters- ie the very same that Jesse Jackson was condemning at the time. Recall that "car-jacking" and crack cocaine was a "new phenomenon" at the time. Recall that the Rodney King riots AND the Chicago Bulls victory riots happened at this time.

* Praising former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in 1990, Ron Paul said through his newsletter that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race-privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.”

--NO. The Ron Paul Newsletter SPECIFICALLY DID NOT PRAISE David Duke. Rather, it stated that this former KKK racist got his high votes not for his racism, but rather for the good SENSIBLE political opinions, ie Free Market, low tax & spend, anti-crime and anti-foreign wars policies. Again, context is INTENTIONALLY not provided. Its a race baiting smear by THE NEW REPUBLICS author. It working because of fools like George Curry.

“* Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal if not entirely criminal,” one Ron Paul newsletter asserts.

--No, the study that the newsletter identified asserts this. And if the context was provided, one would see that the victimless crimes laws, drugs & prostiituion which the newsletter was for LEGALIZING did not think well of the 'semi-criminal" charge. But again, TNR is not about to provide context, they have an SMEARING political agenda of which George Curry is all to willing to help out. Thanks for nothing George! The one Politician who is against the Death Penalty and Drug Wars - institutionalized racism, you turn out against. Wow, with brothas like you Pres Obama, Nixon's Drug War will never go away.

In October of 1992, a newsletter bearing Paul’s name stated, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”

This is a republican conservative investment newsletter. Do you expect them to be ANTI-GUN? Shoot "animals" ie thugs, criminals doing VIOLENCE to steal your stuff or hurt you in some way. This is typical advice for any republican newsletter. But if you are TNR liberal rag, its "scary".

Take the word "animals". If the reader was allowed to read more they would find out that the term "animals" is applied exclusively to thugs, criminals, law breakers doing VIOLENCE against others, both black and white. There was no equating between the term "animals" and black people - except by the THE NEW REPUBLIC's writer James Kirchick, WHO WANTS you to think that. He has an agenda. Hence the select quotes from different years placed together and OUT OF CONTEXT.

I* a December 1989 edition of Ron Paul’s Investment Letter, it was predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities.” According to the publication, “…Mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” · I* In June 1991, following a racial incident in the Adams Morgan section of Washington, D.C., one headline screamed, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.”

Reader beware. This is so jumbled up from '89 to a letter in '91 that its MADE to look bad. Still it is NOT racist. There is NO CONTEXT.

The late congresswoman Barbara Jordon of Texas was called the “archetypical half-educated victimologist.”

Again, ZERO racism there. ZERO. ZILCH. The same can be said for AL SHARPTON who has made his career out of being a archetypical half-educated victimologist. Any self respecting educated NON-LIBERAL black person certainly does NOT let Al Sharpton speak for them. But that is just it. The liberals are now using "racism" as a political weapon, its called race-baiting, and it works so long as we never define our terms and just use the vague and wide PC version. The reason so many conservatives, white ones especially, liked Herman Cain, is because he did not fall for this Political Correctness from the liberal left. He could call a spade a spade in this world of vague Political Correctness of "multicultural sensitivities" , and ironically because he was black, get away with it. For that we loved him.

“…Opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions."

Nothing racist about that. If I say, only 9% of American Japanese have sensible political opinions, that is not racist. Again, look what the definition of racism is. Its sad and worrisome that a George Curry does not know what IS and what is NOT "racist". Perhaps bigotry is the problem. Especially bigoted liberals, particularly black liberals seeing a old white conservative and THINKING anything said about minorities is "racist". That is bigotry. When a sentence says "only 14% of Mexican Americans have sensible immigration opinions" one must ask, what does the writer MEAN by "sensible". That Curry fails to find out, which is silly, irresponsible and HURTFUL to the person you are throwing the "racist" charge too.

But the really sad thing (or is it a good thing?) is that George Curry, a black man, no longer knows what really is racist, vs what is simple bias generalities or bigotry. For the record, "racism is the disparagement of an ethnic groups (real or imagined) traits for the purpose of gaining LEGAL discrimination." Thus, just saying that "English have really bad teeth" or "Spanish people are never fast" or "Nigerians are a tall flatfooted people" or "White middle aged cops can't run longer than 50 yards before they gas out" or "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-age male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" -- all such statements are just generalities that may or may not be true. Comedians say things like this all the time. Charles Barkley on the Daily Show said , "Brothas don't ice skate John, we just don't skate".

George Curry has been royally fooled by by James Kirchick, and the Politically Correct liberal mag The NEW REPUBLIC. (TNR). TNR has been at war with the RP newsletters since they called them "socialists". Out of 20 years of investment newsletters and commentary, by James Kirchick, pulls out 2 dozen "racist" quotes out of context and without reference to the event of the times. Nothing ZERO zilch is racist in them. The sad thing is, too many just accept that it at face value, thus allowing the term racist and racism to be used for political advantage.

He is PRO-WAR in Afganistan and IRAQ and IRAN and perhaps Syria too.He is PRO WAR in Lybia and did it without Congress approvalHe is PRO-DRUG WAR (more institutional racism)He is PRO-GITMO our own American Gulag system of prisonsHe is PRO- Killing Americans without trialHe is PRO-WAR against IRAN (what the hell have they done?)He is PRO-IRAQ war -- lied getting us out in 9 months.He Is PRO IRAQ war-- We were thrown out of Iraq & Obama tried desperately to STAY IN IRAQHe signed all of the Bush Tax Cuts.He raised the DEBT ceiling -- something he criticized GWBush for doing.He SPENT like a drunk, something he criticized GWBush for doing.He resigned the PATRIOT ACT which takes away our civil rights.

It is amazing to me the number of people that are willing to excuse this sort of behavior. Does it matter if it was a ghost writer? It is unfathomable that he would have no idea what was in the letters and that no one brought it to his attention in all of that time. He is as much of a revisionist as Romney. He cant hide behind a sheet like the clan of over a hundred years ago but he wants to hide behind ignorance of what was written in his letter. Well I say ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law and ignorance should be no excuse for what is written in your name even if you did not write it. Ron Paul is a racist or he supported them, either way I am happy he will never be president and I look forward to his supporters taking the blinders off and moving on to a viable candidate.

I would love you to prove that Paul wrote those newsletters. Before you attack someone, do some research first. It was a ghostwriter and under a ghostwriter contract, Paul cannot tell who the writer is. Those were not his writings. The way it works is that when you have a newsletter, many can write what they want under that person's site or print it off under that person's name. Just like on his website, many write articles and pass them around. The more racism is brought up, like this ridiculous article you have written, the longer it stays around. There are several YouTube videos of black men stating that even IF RP is racist, they don't care because "we can take care of ourselves like we always have". RP has done nothing but fight for freedom and that's for anyone of any color. Research before you write a story please. Keep on bringing up racism and you will keep making it worse for everyone.

You're argument that civil rights legislation has changed the biases of the people is working retroactively because you first want to force an idea, irrespective of whether it is morally good or bad, and then watch the effects later. You're advancing the argument that it worked when in fact it worked only because people accepted it. As a matter of fact. This notion that this or that group "deserves" something initiates racism, it doesn't prevent it. It points to the difference.

Racism is rare among young people because they are cultured differently. Government may and does have involvement in the way it cultures the people. But ultimately people create the culture, not the hegemony of the government.

"Paul pulled off the microphone in a tiff, while the interviewer was still speaking." Yes, and you forgot to mention how his untimely breathing is a sure indication of frustration. Seriously, what's your point? He's ticked for being alluded to as a racist. What other reasonable person wouldn't be? He didn't "storm off" he simply realized that the past six minutes about his newsletters which is a "legitimate question" is a waste of his time. That's why he said, "When are you going to wear yourself out?" I'm guessing next you're criticize the direction of his comb over.

"How do you think 'WE the people' can 'stand up and discipline the immoral' if 'WE the people' can't even stand up and organize a trip to the polling place to vote the rascals out?" I never said it would be a walk in the park. But Ron Paul has been spreading the good message, and it seems to be taking hold.

Oh, and those civil rights laws that Paul and his groupies despise so much? They have proven the falsehood of any claim that 'Government cannot change the biases and morals of people' - by changing the behavior of people (ending 'separate but equal,' etc.), civil rights legislation has also changed the biases of people. As they have more everyday contact with members of other ethnic groups, they learn that people are, for the most part, just people. That's why racism is much rarer among young people, who grew up post-civil rights legislation and are, again for the most part, amazed and amused by the blatant racism of the Ron Paul newsletters.

I have watched 'the uncut version,' which is why I know that claims to the contrary are misleading. Paul pulled off the microphone in a tiff, while the interviewer was still speaking.Meanwhile, though, it's certainly ironic to read complaints about 'so much faith in the government' which exists, after all, only because voters - 'everyday people,' in your words - have either voted it into office or failed to vote it out - from someone who has 'so much faith in the' exact same voters who are [ir]responsible for the system we have. How do you think 'WE the people' can 'stand up and discipline the immoral' if 'WE the people' can't even stand up and organize a trip to the polling place to vote the rascals out? Talk about naïve . . .

Perhaps you should watch the uncut version and then come back to retract your remarks.

In the real world, the media is misrepresenting the facts, they sum up a complicated issue into three words, and the government is corrupt. I do not disagree that WE ought to do something. But that "WE" should not be in any imaginable way the government politicians. It should be the everyday people who care. Government cannot change the biases and morals of people. Only PEOPLE can change the biases and morals of people. You want government, to use Paul's terms, to "protect us from cradle to grave". If you think there is no racism because of government, you're dead wrong. Only WE the people, NOT the politicians, can make that change. Stop having so much faith in the government.

The interview was NOT over. If you claim it was, you either didn't watch Paul pull the microphone off while the interviewer was still talking or are purposely trying to mislead those who haven't seen it. As for 'WE, the people' - government is and has been, since at least as long ago as ancient Athens, the means by which WE, the people 'stand up and discipline' not 'the immoral' (too subjective) but those who harm by polluting our water, contaminating our food supply, illegally discriminating, etc. All of which Ron Paul thinks are not matters for legislation. The overwhelming majority of Americans disagree, however, along with the rest of the world population. It's only in the Fantasyland inhabited by Paulistas that these things correct themselves, through magical thinking combined with the 'invisible hand of the market.' In the real world, real people join together to form governments to accomplish these aims, because they cannot be achieved by individuals acting alone.

This article couldn't be more misleading and it's a shame Curry doesn't look at the big picture.

Ron Paul did not terminate the interview. The interview was already over. He was frustrated that people are pestering him about this because he's being labeled as a racist. He's far from it.

Ron Paul believes in INDIVIDUAL liberty not GROUP liberty. Groups don't have rights; individuals do. What Ron Paul is saying is that the GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT prefer one group over another, based on the color of their skin, sexual preference, gender, etc. But if we encounter forms of racism, sexism, or discrimination based on sexual preference, then WE, the people, NOT the government, ought to do something about it. WE, the people, must stand up and discipline the immoral. It is NOT the burden of the government to do so.

Wow! The Paulistas are out in force here, aren't they? And attacking George Curry personally because they have no substantive response to the issues he has raised. The fact remains that Ron Paul published newsletters in his name that made the most vile racist statements and he refused to renounce them until only recently, making the weak defense that he hadn't really read them before. Is there anyone who really wants to trust the most powerful position in the world to someone who for years, routinely signs off on documents he hasn't read and refuses to do so, until it looks like they will damage his candidacy? Who then walks out of an interview in a huff, when the question is raised, instead of responding?

Even a stopped clock is right, twice a day. Just because Ron Paul campaigns on an end to the drug 'war' and the perpetual 'war on terror' doesn't change the fact that he allowed appallingly racist newsletters to go out under his name and failed to address this issue until it created a sh*tstorm in Iowa. The guy's clueless. And dangerous, since the naive Libertarianism he espouses would do away with hard-won advances like the civil rights laws, child labor laws, minimum wage and educational assistance programs, leaving ordinary working Americans of all races even more vulnerable to the predations of the 1%.

Wow, how much do they pay you to slame the only candidate of both parties that would end both the racist drug war and the military industrial comPlexes grip on America, the costs of both which hurt minorities disproportionately.? As well, much of you info here is untrue. You should go to the sources rather than just reprint what the neo-con, Israeli-Firsters' spin machine churns out. Those people have destroyed the American Black family for their own personal gain, and here you are doing their work for them. Outrageous.

If the problem of racism was George E. Curry's primary concern, he would be doing less smearing and talking more about the cognitive dissonance that arises when Paul's objectively non-racist policy prescriptions for ending the drug war conflict with he content of the newsletter.

No such dissonance or introspection is displayed or examined, just stenography.

Even though Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about ending the racist drug war, George E. Curry is concerned about Ron Paul's racism because racism is what is important to George E. Curry and George E. Curry wants to help lift you up by exposing Ron Paul as a racist.